Models for making sense of relativity - physical space vs physical spacetime

[studiot]

 

memammal post#224

Just thinking out loud...one could also use real infinities to describe "macro events" in order to differentiate it from quantum behaviour's potential infinities..?

 

Thank you for this and your previous post on my actual v potential infinities suggestion.

 

Off the top of my head, I don't think so.

 

It should be realised that the analogy is not exact.

 

The mathematical concept has properties not present in the relativistic universe and vice versa.

 

But like all analogies they have exploitable properties in common.

 

In particular mathematically the concept was developed to handle infinities.

 

The universe by contrast does not need to be infinite, but we can apply the idea however it is.

 

We should really return to my drawing analogy for the good part.

 

I can draw an actual infinity, say all the real numbers between 0 and 1, but I can't draw a line representing all the integers, even though there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers.

 

The guy in my original example drawing the line y=x² between x=0 and x=1 is in the same position.

The rest of the line is still available even though he hasn't drawn it.

 

Exactly like the block universe idea.

[Memammal]

The universe by contrast does not need to be infinite, but we can apply the idea however it is.

 

We should really return to my drawing analogy for the good part.

 

I can draw an actual infinity, say all the real numbers between 0 and 1, but I can't draw a line representing all the integers, even though there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers.

 

The guy in my original example drawing the line y=x² between x=0 and x=1 is in the same position.

The rest of the line is still available even though he hasn't drawn it.

 

Exactly like the block universe idea.

OK, I understood this part of it early on already...I somehow thought you had a more expansive analogy in mind. I think we are pretty much on the same page.

[Tim88]

Thank you Tim88 for this excellent presentation.

 

I think it would be helpful to add a little clarification to this paragraphe:

 

We may therefore still suppose that a 3D "background" exists that affects and determines our measurements. Absolute Space is directly associated with distances and lengths. But different from Newton's mechanics, measurements of distances and lengths are affected by means of Absolute Space.

In contrast with distances, time is a measure for the progress of physical processes; however our measurements of time are similarly affected by means of Absolute Space.

 

IMO length and time measurement are not affected by Absolute Space as such, but by the effect of electro-magnetic propagation.

When an EM wave is formed in a moving system, the propagation of the wave is independent of the motion of the system.

That means that the centers of all the EM waves stay in one single frame wherein the waves propagate as growing spheres.

But since the shape of all the objects depends on EM forces which thus propagate independently, the moving objects (including rulers and clocks) are affected in such a way that in there own frame, the propagation of the EM waves will always appear to be isotropic and their measured speed will always be the same (=c), despite of any change in velocity of the object's frame.

 

Yes, thanks bvr!

We fully agree; and that's why I did not say "affected by Absolute Space", but "affected by means of Absolute Space".

Without some kind of medium (or "background"), no fields or waves are possible. Viewing matter as "waves" matches rather well with Quantum field theory, in which matter is perceived as field excitations.

[Mordred]

I think one of the problems ppl have is understanding the difference between field potential and a charged field when it comes to trying to treat fields as a medium. A field doesn't involve any medium characteristics until you have an interaction.

[Tim88]

I think one of the problems ppl have is understanding the difference between field potential and a charged field when it comes to trying to treat fields as a medium. A field doesn't involve any medium characteristics until you have an interaction.

 

I don't think that fields should be treated as a medium; it's a subtly different concept. Einstein was aware of that, for he phrased the ether as "bearer" or "seat" of electromagnetic fields.

PS I found back a technical paper by Schmelzer that examines in detail how Lorentzian metaphysics affects interpretation of GR (it re-derives the GR equations starting from Lorentz ether): https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035

Regretfully much of it is above my head.

[Mordred]

There is a few sections that give me difficulties in that paper. Its interesting but I don't agree with one section in that paper. In particular the spin 2 statistics section under sound waves. The quadrapole nature of GW waves does not require dark matter for the additional degrees of freedom. (I would have to spend more time studying it)

 

If your interested, though lengthy and relatively complex I can post how spin 2 comes about on GW waves. At least according to examples found in textbooks.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Regretfully you are perhaps the only one currently active on scienceforums.net with sufficient detailed GR + QM knowledge to discuss those issues. And it will probably be unclear if, or in what way, they relate to the metaphysics.

Thus you would risk a lack of response, even less than the meager response I got to my elaborations here above (although some appreciation was communicated to me in private).

Edited November 3, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

I believe there are others though less active lol. I'm still not positive on my interpretation of that paper. The spin statistics aspect is covered in numerous "Introductory to GR" textbooks. It is one of the lessons to learning GR. The chapter that covers this is usually under GR waves. What would really help on that paper is someone who better understands some of the gauge group symbology in that paper. Although I understand gauge groups to a certain extent. There is numerous relations symbols used on that paper that I don't recognize. More precisely two specific symbols. I'm not even sure I can latex them lol.

 

Ah found them. [latex]\Upsilon, \Xi [/latex] they appear to be unique to this paper, collectively he has a group

 

[latex]\begin{pmatrix}-\Upsilon&0&0&0\\0&-\Xi&0&0\\0&0&-\Xi&0\\0&0&0&-\Xi\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

 

The majority of the rest is standard Euler-Langrange and Hamilton equations so those parts I'm familiar with.

 

For your benefict "Introductory to Langrange mechanics"

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwifs6zvno7QAhVL6WMKHSogDIoQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macs.hw.ac.uk%2F~simonm%2Fmechanics.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHZnAntVnyYJnhX0bQrDFbA6n46QA

 

as Dirac was mentioned some of the Dirac notation is used.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwjH1PGnoI7QAhUK0WMKHX1mCeoQFghAMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.users.csbsju.edu%2F~frioux%2Fdirac%2Fdirac.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEv9MysNDmO-XWbIhz6QftvngBTWA

 

Another required study to understand paper is Hamilton.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwihgu--oY7QAhUDxGMKHXwLCLoQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fuser%2Ftong%2Fdynamics%2Ffour.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE1AIMv-gse0hNgko8_XvYxW2RXHA

 

Naturally you need a good understanding of tensors. The majority of that paper is fairly decent. The problem I'm having on full comprehensive understanding of it is the group above. Though those details are likely within the paper itself but I would have to study it in greater detail to know for sure.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Mordred I suspect that such a discussion has more chance to take off when it is presented in the relativity forum, as more people are likely to see it.

Meanwhile I suddenly thought of a rather basic issue that has not yet been discussed, and which is directly related to relativity of simultaneity: the isotropy of light propagation.

 

With 3D Space (Lorentz ether) that's easy to picture: light propagates at c through the ether, the same in all directions. By means of a "local" reference system one can make it appear as if instead the light propagates at c relatively to that reference system. I explained this in detail in post #223 example 4.

 

It may be useful to point out that the consequence of making light propagation appear to be isotropic relative to the chosen reference system (("closing velocity"), is that it then appears to be anistropic relative to other, "moving" reference systems, such as with for example a "moving" Michelson interferometer. From the perspective that the apparatus is moving, along an arm that is oriented along the direction of motion, the light appears to take more time to traverse it in one direction than in the opposite direction.

 

How is propagation of light interpreted with the 4D Spacetime (block universe/evolving block) models? What is their "hidden reality" view? Surely the interpretation can't be that light propagation is both truly isotropic and anisotropic!

[Mordred]

You need to be careful here. The Lorentz transforms by itself without rapidity or tidal forces etc is symmetric. In all cases. Movement is a change in spatial position so yes at first it appears anistropic but becomes isotropic once you remove the added influence of the spatial position change.

 

I would classify Lorentz ether as a 4d view but with a frame preference as it does have a time transformation. Galilean relativity is a 3d view no time transformation.

 

The M$M experiment was looking for an additional aberration due to medium dragging. It already realized the above would hold true if there was no ether. With an ether the above would also be affected. You can do this experiment at home. Take a glass tub with a laser beam. Step one light where the tub is filled with water. Then have the water moving. The two beams will not match.

 

This is the essence of the M and M experiment, it simply used the Earths movement to get ether flow. Unfortunately it wasn't a one way speed of light test but still a two way speed of light test. There is numerous papers showing this flaw.

I'm not even sure what apparatus would be needed to have a true one way test. Though I'm sure someone has developed one. I simply haven't researched that line of later tests enough to state this test is a true one way test.

 

I have a decent coverage of M$M showing the transforms but its rather lengthy to post the math. I can show it later on though. Actually there is a simple example.

 

let U be the speed of light in a medium at rest. Primed U medium in motion. V velocity of medium.

 

[latex]U=\acute{U}+kv[/latex] k=1-1/n^2

 

where k is the drag coefficient.

 

Google Fizeau experiment.

 

therefore [latex]U=\frac{\acute{U}+v}{1+\acute{U}\frac{v}{c^2}}=\acute {U}+U (1-\frac{\acute{U}v}{c^2})=\acute{U}+v(1-\frac{\acute{U}^2}{c^2})=\acute{U}+kv [/latex]

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment was trying to find the value for k. Drag coefficient.

 

Note there is no time transformation in the above. Its a Galilean relativity kinematics.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

I think that you are confounding two different experiments by M-M; but sorry, I'm not talking about MM in particular, and neither am I talking about time transformations. Note also that a true one way test (i.e. revealing "true" one-way speed of light) cannot be done, as that would break the relativity principle. However that is not the topic of discussion here. If you don't believe me, please start it as a question in the relativity forum.

 

I am talking about the physical interpretation of light propagation. If light propagates through a 3D ether, that is without conceptual problems, as I explained earlier on this page.

 

Already with the car example, the speed of light relative to the car according to a ground observer (the "closing speed") is anisotropic. Thus I asked: how is propagation of light interpreted with the 4D Spacetime (block universe/evolving block) models? What are their "hidden reality" views? Surely the interpretation can't be that light propagation is both truly isotropic and anisotropic! Light can not be truly moving at c relative to an arbitrarily chosen 3D reference system, as that would be self contradictory.

 

An obvious explanation attempt would be a literal 4D ether, made up of "space and "time". However, for light propagation to be truly isotropic, "time" and "length" should be of the same substance. And we know that this is not true; clocks measure time, and rulers measure length. Thus my question stands.

[Mordred]

I'm still trying to figure out why your ignoring spatial direction in one case but not the others. Its the same as the twins paradox. Especially since you know There is no possible way to distinquish Lorentz ether from GR

 

If the twin is moving towards his twin he will recieve signals faster.

 

So why would you think this isn't true for Lorentz ether? as well as Minkowskii and full GR?

 

The time symmetry relation just applies to the transform and is implicity shown via

 

[latex]\acute{t}=\gamma (t-v^2/c_2)[/latex]

[latex]t=\gamma (\acute{t}-v^2/c_2)[/latex]

 

So event a measures the time dilation and event b measures the same dilation.

Both observers get the same value for the magnitude the clock slows down when looking at the other reference frame.

 

This is symmetric and isotropic.

 

Length contraction symmetry does not apply to the Worldline path. It applies to the object not the path. The Worldline path itself being invariant. Doesn't matter if the twin is moving away or towards the other twin the symmetry follows the same rules as above.

 

[latex]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt)[/latex]

 

with reverse being identical upon calculation.

[latex]x=\gamma (x-vt)[/latex]

 

It is only those relations that are symmetric and isotropic. This amounts to

both twins will get the same value for the amount of length contraction and time dilation

 

The spatial seperation however is not symmetric and isotropic as an observer moving away from an emitter will recieve signals slower than moving towards the emitter. The symmetric and isotropy literally applies to strictly the transforms I've posted it does not apply to direction and the subsequent different signal rates. ie series of signal pulses. The observer moving away from the emitter recieves pulses slower than moving towards. That isn't due to the transformations themself but to the spatial seperation with direction.

 

This is true for all cases.

 

Put simply if given a value for gamma.

 

Event a and b will have identical length contraction and time dilation values when looking at the emitter. This is the isotropy relation. In the pulse rate scenario both will measure the same rate of pulses. It does not mean the outgoing observer will recieve the pulses at the same rate incoming.

 

Wiki has a slightly different way to describe the symmetry but it amounts to the above.

 

"which shows much more clearly the symmetry in the transformation. From the allowed ranges of v and the definition of β, it follows −1 < β < 1. The use of β and γ is standard throughout the literature."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

Now the preferred frame in Lorentz ether itself presents a problem with isotropy in time. The preferred frame is the only one that is at rest. So here you do have time anistropy. Which follows by the following.

 

Alice is the Lorentz ether frame. Bob is on the inertial frame. Bob sees himself as inertial so does Alice as Alice IF is the true rest frame. Alice's reference never undergoes transformations While Bob's frame does regardless if you switch observer and emitter.

 

Which is different from comparing two inertial frames. Alice sees Bobs as the frame being transformed. If you switch emitter/observer the opposite is true.( time symmetry) Neither Alice or Bobs frame has higher priority or accuracy.

 

On the preferred frame case Alice reference is always at rest and never transforms. It is the only accurate frame.(this is a t-assymetry)

 

Yet ignoring the preferred frame itself the time isotropy applies between two inertial frames but not to the preferred frame.

 

This is precisely why I stated the Preferred Lorentz ether is incompatible with the Principle of relativity "There is no preferred frame "

Edited November 29, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Mordred, I'm sorry as you clearly put time and effort in this, but it's hopeless as I'm not talking about anything that you discussed in your last two replies; but I'm hardly surprised, as metaphysics isn't really your thing.

 

- No, I'm not asking about Lorentz ether

- No, I'm not asking about symmetry of transformation equations

- No, I'm not asking about the Doppler effect

- No, I'm not asking about a "preferred frame"

 

Instead, I am questioning a serious apparent defect of the block universe interpretation. Maybe someone else who adheres to the block universe interpretation and reads my posts #234 and 236, may be able to answer my question.

[Mordred]

Your right I can't see why your ignoring the specifics of what is termed isotropy of light. I'm not specifying models but showing the time isotropy and length isotropy to show you how isotropy of light is determined.

 

Sorry I can't explain it in any simpler terms. I really don't see where you keep misinterpretating my posts. I keep thinking the problem is that you don't stick with the proper terminology. The majority of the terminology used in GR/SR regardless of model is rooted in differential geometry. Yet it seems you don't wish to understand the mathematical basis behind the key terminologies.

 

Your continous use of 3D Lorentz is a prime example. It is mathematically inaccurate. Lorentz ether has 4 degrees of freedom. (four independant variables) 3 spatial one of time. GR/SR is time independant. Galilean relativity is time dependant. Time does not add an additional degree of freedom in Galilean relativity.

 

 

An obvious explanation attempt would be a literal 4D ether, made up of "space and "time". However, for light propagation to be truly isotropic, "time" and "length" should be of the same substance. And we know that this is not true; clocks measure time, and rulers measure length. Thus my question stands.

Answer to this is given above. Your right I am not using metaphysics arguments to answer this but the math behind the physics. Which quite frankly the metaphysics arguments and definitions is BASED upon. Yet you seem to think metaphysics means you can ignore the terminology mathematical or otherwise.

 

As light is invariant to all observers. Then light is obviously symmetric and isotropic. So you answer your question why would think light is anistropic?

 

Maybe you can better define what you mean when you stated light cannot both be anistropic and isotropic. As light is the same for all observers...secondly what two units are used to describe light propogation (length and time)

 

So how light propogation which is invariant be both isotropic and anistropic.?

 

Your right I have no idea how you can even conclude that.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

[..] The majority of the terminology used in GR/SR regardless of model is rooted in differential geometry. Yet it seems you don't wish to understand the mathematical basis behind the key terminologies.

 

[..]

 

Your right I am not using metaphysics arguments to answer this but the math behind the physics. [..]

 

The terminology of physics must be rooted in physics; and the issue I raised has nothing to do with geometry but the physical model behind the physics -thus metaphysics. If you are commenting physics terminology with geometric terminology, then indeed no useful discussion is possible.

 

 

As light is invariant to all observers. Then light [propagation] is obviously symmetric and isotropic. [..]

 

Here you confound invariance of reference systems with isotropic media! As I elaborated thrice already, if you are a ground observer and according to you light propagates isotropically at speed c relative to you, then according to you it propagates at c-v and c+v relative to the moving car. How do you explain light propagation?

 

Let me phrase the issue differently, with a reminder with the starting point of this thread. The 3D Space and 4D Spacetime views of reality resulted, among other considerations, from the realisation (as earlier discussed here) that the speed c ("the speed of light in vacuum") must be a characteristic of some kind of medium - either 3D ("Lorentz ether") or 4D ("block universe"). It isn't a characteristic of the emitter or the receiver or of the state of motion of either, and it can't be a characteristic of the observer.

 

However, "space" and "time" are definitely not substantially of the same nature. 4D Spacetime can therefore not provide a truly homogeneous medium for isotropic light propagation.

[Mordred]

When v=c the ds^2 line element =zero. Ie the photon is everywhere at once. This is precisely why a v=c frame is not a valid inertial frame. But you don't want the math and if your understanding of metaphysics is ignore the math then I have no interest. Quite frankly if you ignore the math and definitions of both physics and metaphysics your not discussing physics.

 

(little hint the v-c and v+c can be used to establish the speed limit.) with or without light.

 

Have fun. I have zero interest if were ignoring the math and subsequent definitions

 

To quote David Hume.

 

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion".

 

Oh one last detail, against an ether frame medium wise or otherwise.

 

It is the only frame considered as invarient. It is strictly at rest (Non inertial) All other frames are inertial, with arbitrary choice of rest frame.

 

Materialistic or not, undetectable or not.

 

Which isn't the case in SR nor GR. All frames are variant under the same transformations. All frames are inertial.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Mordred

[Mordred]

However, "space" and "time" are definitely not substantially of the same nature. 4D Spacetime can therefore not provide a truly homogeneous medium for isotropic light propagation.

I argue differently under the math. However I've already provided those reasons. Including showing the math for Lorentz ether to keep c constant. Which is not the same equations as the Lorentz transformations.

 

But then according to Tim, Lorentz ether is 3d. Yet has variable time as a vector.

 

Who is also claiming two metrics that has identical transformation rules between frames is somehow different. When mathematically the only difference is the removal of the Lorentz frame itself.

 

Neither of which has the same transformation rules between frames as the proper definition of 3d Galilean relativity. Where all observers measure t itself as invariant and in this case c cannot be invariant.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

[..] you don't want the math and if your understanding of metaphysics is ignore the math then I have no interest. [..]

That's nonsense, as I demonstrated how the 3D + time interpretation perfectly matches the math and how it makes perfect sense metaphysically. I also explained how light propagation is understood with that interpretation; no need to repeat what I already elaborated one page back (page 12, post # 223). My demand for those who are promoting the 4D space interpretation (any variant of it), is to do the same, and ducking the issue doesn't bring anything.

[VandD]

I am talking about the physical interpretation of light propagation.

Define 'physical'.

If light propagates through a 3D ether, that is without conceptual problems, as I explained earlier on this page.

Light propagation doesn't need a medium/ether to be physical. Movement is reading successive events, all frozen and co-existing in 4D block universe. We don't know yet why we experience ourselves as a 3D being evolving in time, but part of our 4D existence, part of the block universe events. We don't know why we experience evolving time. That's for further generations to sort out.

Already with the car example, the speed of light relative to the car according to a ground observer (the "closing speed") is anisotropic. Thus I asked: how is propagation of light interpreted with the 4D Spacetime (block universe/evolving block) models? What are their "hidden reality" views?

Co-existing events is all you need. 'Real/physical' 3D space/world is section through 4D block universe.

Surely the interpretation can't be that light propagation is both truly isotropic and anisotropic!

Light can not be truly moving at c relative to an arbitrarily chosen 3D reference system, as that would be self contradictory.

Only if you stubbornly believe you NEED an medium/ether for light propagation to exist.

An obvious explanation attempt would be a literal 4D ether, made up of "space and "time". However, for light propagation to be truly isotropic, "time" and "length" should be of the same substance.

And we know that this is not true; clocks measure time, and rulers measure length.

Light is isotropic in 4D block universe, each observer measures with real/physical clocks and rulers. They all consider light propagation c physical/real.

I think you don't understand how block universe works.

 

[Tim88]

 

[..] Light propagation doesn't need a medium/ether to be physical. Movement is reading successive events, all frozen and co-existing in 4D block universe. We don't know yet why we experience ourselves as a 3D being evolving in time, but part of our 4D existence, part of the block universe events. We don't know why we experience evolving time. That's for further generations to sort out.

Co-existing events is all you need. 'Real/physical' 3D space/world is section through 4D block universe.

[..]

Light is isotropic in 4D block universe, each observer measures with real/physical clocks and rulers. They all consider light propagation c physical/real.

I think you don't understand how block universe works.

 

Thanks VanD, I see that you make a serious attempt to explain the block inverse.

 

You are certainly right that I don't fully understand how the block universe can work as a substantial entity, as opposed to a mere mathematical tool.

 

Now, by claiming that the 4D "block" is not some kind of a medium, you seem to deviate from other defenders of that interpretation and that you make it less substantial - for what is it then? If you claim that it is nothingness, then this is the wrong thread for you: the starting assumption or postulate of this thread is that there is something substantial (either "Space" or "Spacetime") that we assume in order to explain and make sense of it all, and this thread is discussing two of those interpretations that we can choose from. If you want to argue that neither Space nor Spacetime have substantial existence, then you should continue the discussion in the mother thread.

 

Is there anyone who can explain with block universe interpretation how and relative to what, light truly isotropically propagates at speed c?

[VandD]

 

the starting assumption or postulate of this thread is that there is something substantial (either "Space" or "Spacetime")

In order to do that you have to define what you mean by 'substantial', 'real' etc.

Go for it, I'm all ears.

In my previous post I already asked you to define what you mean by 'physical'.

Edited December 3, 2016 by VandD

[Mordred]

For the record modern tests have tested isotropy of light to an accuracy of 10^-19. Wiki has 10^-17 but this came out later than the last reference test on wiki.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6954&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjwmaGj99jQAhVDwVQKHVxlAJEQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNEhZHeTyLlenVD-Xem4V95RFXRR8A

 

 

That's nonsense, as I demonstrated how the 3D + time interpretation perfectly matches the math and how it makes perfect sense metaphysically. I also explained how light propagation is understood with that interpretation; no need to repeat what I already elaborated one page back (page 12, post # 223). My demand for those who are promoting the 4D space interpretation (any variant of it), is to do the same, and ducking the issue doesn't bring anything.

Fine mathematically show how two models that use precisely the same transformation equations will get different results.

 

I'd like to see that from you as you cannot get different results if your using the same transformation equations.

 

This is what your ducking by avoiding the math itself. Not your little car scenario you posted earlier. Which you used Galilean relativity and not Lorentz ether.

 

Galilean relativity is the only absolute time model. As it does not have a time transformation between IF frames.

 

Lorentz ether does. It has 4 independant variables/coordinates. t,x,y,z. that is 4 dimensions not three.

 

Galilean only has three independant variables. x,y,z.

 

Simply renaming Lorentz ether as a 3d model then applying it to your car scenario is false. Lorentz ether has 4 dimensions in its math not 3. No matter how many times I've repeated this to you.

 

You flat out ignored it. As it doesn't match Tims view.

 

Recall that Lorentz Ether cannot be mathematically distinquished from SR 4d. You yourself has stated this.

 

So how did you mathematically show Lorentz ether as having a different result than SR. When every professional physicsist cannot.

 

Come on Tim I'd like to see that mathematical proof of yours. Start with identical transformation equations and show a difference. PS no physicist considers a metaphysics argument as proof.

 

Proof requires the math

Transforms under absolute time between frames.

 

[latex]t=\acute{t},x=vt,y=\acute{y},z=\acute{z}[/latex] This is Galilean 3d. Time is absolute in Galilean relativity.

 

 

Lorentz transformation/Minkowskii/SR 4d. Not 3D Not 3D Not 3d not 3D. (do I need to repeat this further?

 

[latex]t=\gamma\acute{t}, x=\gamma\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex]

 

Time is variable between frames. This is the identical transformation SR uses.

 

So mathematically show me how you get two different results using

 

[latex]t=\gamma\acute{t}, x=\gamma\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex]

 

In Lorentz ether vs Minkowskii/SR using the last transformation equations in all 3 cases?

Edited December 3, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

In order to do that you have to define what you mean by 'substantial', 'real' etc.

Go for it, I'm all ears.

In my previous post I already asked you to define what you mean by 'physical'.

 

No I don't, for, once more, that question was elaborate in the mother thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/

 

And if you can't explain light propagation that's also OK; it would just have helped to make block universe more convincing.

For the record modern tests have tested isotropy of light to an accuracy of 10^-19. Wiki has 10^-17 but this came out later than the last reference test on wiki.

http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6954&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjwmaGj99jQAhVDwVQKHVxlAJEQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNEhZHeTyLlenVD-Xem4V95RFXRR8A

 

Which just goes to show that you still don't understand my question; but we already knew that. Only this is worse, for it also means that you don't even understand that the speed of light is made isotropic by means of Einstein synchronization. Explaining that belongs not to this philosophy forum but to the physics forum (note that my calculation examples imply that fact and that Einstein specifically clarified that already in 1907; if you still have questions about it, start a topic in the relativity forum). It could be that that is the reason why you did not understand my question, as my question concerned the "true" one-way speed of light according to "block" in contrast to the "apparent" one-way speed of light as operationally defined in SR.

 

And you suddenly asked me questions about the Lorentz ether of which I can't make any sense; in particular:

 

 

how did you mathematically show Lorentz ether as having a different result than SR

 

To the contrary, this topic is based on the assumption that a theory cannot give results that differ from its mathematics, and my examples were meant to demonstrate that fact!

 

Anyway, I have clarified as much as I could; and it appears that -currently- nobody else here is willing or capable of further explaining either the Lorentz ether interpretation or the block universe interpretation by means of clarifying examples. I thus consider this topic from here on to be "on standby".

Thanks for the discussions, which made this topic not only more interesting for onlookers but also for me!

Edited December 4, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

Sorry obviously you can't show the difference mathematically otherwise you would. It is empirically impossible to seperate Lorentz ether and SR using the same transformation rules. Yet you yourself know this fact as you yourself mentioned this detail.

 

Yet you claim to be able to show a difference.

 

I'm done with your claims without substance, you can't even get the mathematical dimensions correct. I'm tired of pointing these key details to you just so you can claim

 

"thats a physics argument not a metaphysics argument" If the metaphysics arguments don't demonstrate the physics or math then it is utterly useless.

 

You can't even agree on isotropy of light when presented with a professional peer reviewed test. Your only counter argument is utterly useless

 

Yet according to you all metaphysics papers were wrong on presentism. I can quote that section for you if you don't recall it. Which flat out tells me you don't even adhere to metaphysics definitions.

 

by the way synchronization is lost with seperation. That is why you use Einstein synchronization to account for loss of synchronization. You probably won't agree with that statement either lol

 

The worse part is I even gave you the math to make Lorentz ether work in keeping c constant. Which was the entire purpose to Lorentz ether.

 

I know precisely what you were after and I am flat out telling you "Your wrong"

 

Reasons why your wrong have been repeated too many times to count.

 

(note that my calculation examples imply that fact.

Thats funny Tim I haven't seen a single calculation from you in any of your threads in the philosophy forum.

 

I already pointed out you can't call Lorentz ether theory 3d as it DOES NOT have absolute time. So your rinky dink car example does not apply to Lorentz ether under 3d but under 4d.

 

As a matter of fact I am the only poster that even covered the math involved.

In order to do that you have to define what you mean by 'substantial', 'real' etc.

Go for it, I'm all ears.

In my previous post I already asked you to define what you mean by 'physical'.

I fully agree with this please define real or physical.

 

While your at it define what you mean by "true one way speed of light"

 

Unfortunately Voigt's work never got recognition which Lorentz based most of his work from. Yet he even stated c is invarient and isotropic.

 

The only model where that is not the case is Galilean relativity. Also in Galilean relativity there is no speed limit.

 

Maybe you should actually study the difference between Galilean 3d and 4d spacetime models such as Lorentz ether/Minkowskii/SR. Perhaps start with how a dimension is mathematically defined.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Sorry obviously you can't show the difference mathematically otherwise you would. It is empirically impossible to seperate Lorentz ether and SR using the same transformation rules. Yet you yourself know this fact as you yourself mentioned this detail.

 

Yet you claim to be able to show a difference.[..]

 

I claim that their is no mathematical difference, and I elaborately demonstrated how the Lorentz ether works in not only creating a constant c for the return speed of light but also in obtaining invariance of c (note the continuing confusion between constant c and invariance; that's the origin of the lack of understanding).

 

 

[..] Thats funny Tim I haven't seen a single calculation from you in any of your threads in the philosophy forum.

 

That's funny indeed! Maybe you don't see calculations when you read them, or maybe you forgot to click on hyperlinks.

Consequently you even get your facts wrong, for everyone to see:

 

As a matter of fact I am the only poster that even covered the math involved.

 

This topic came to a dead end.